Language and Cognition - Bangor University · that are affected by animacy (see Section 1.3). Here...

PR

IFY

SG

OL

BA

NG

OR

/ B

AN

GO

R U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y

Effects of animacy and linguistic construction on the interpretation ofspatial descriptions in English and SpanishOlloqui-Redondo, Javier; Tenbrink, Thora; Foltz, Anouschka

Language and Cognition

Published: 21/06/2019

Peer reviewed version

Cyswllt i'r cyhoeddiad / Link to publication

Dyfyniad o'r fersiwn a gyhoeddwyd / Citation for published version (APA):Olloqui-Redondo, J., Tenbrink, T., & Foltz, A. (2019). Effects of animacy and linguisticconstruction on the interpretation of spatial descriptions in English and Spanish. Language andCognition, 11(2 (Special Issue on Iconicity)), 256-284.

Hawliau Cyffredinol / General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/orother copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legalrequirements associated with these rights.

• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of privatestudy or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ?

Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access tothe work immediately and investigate your claim.

02. Feb. 2021

https://research.bangor.ac.uk/portal/en/researchoutputs/effects-of-animacy-and-linguistic-construction-on-the-interpretation-of-spatial-descriptions-in-english-and-spanish(b3e88e12-513e-4d58-8e7e-34bb15b9099d).html

https://research.bangor.ac.uk/portal/en/researchers/thora-tenbrink(74d21e05-8490-45d3-ab59-b96e44c9d926).html



Effects of animacy on spatial descriptions in English and Spanish

Effects of animacy and linguistic construction on the interpretation of

spatial descriptions in English and Spanish

Javier Olloqui-Redondo Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain Thora Tenbrink Bangor University, Wales, UK Anouschka Foltz Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, Austria Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the participants for taking part in our study and two anonymous

reviewers and the editor for their helpful comments and suggestions. We would also like

to thank Bodo Winter and Shravan Vashishth for helpful suggestions regarding the

statistical analyses. Any remaining errors are of course our own.

2

Abstract

The languages of the world differ in their use of intrinsic, relative, and absolute reference

frames to describe spatial relationships, but factors guiding reference frame choices are not

yet well understood. This paper addresses the role of animacy and linguistic construction

in reference frame choice in English and Spanish. During each trial of two experiments,

adult participants saw a spatial scene along with a sentence describing the location of an

object (locatum) relative to another object (relatum) that was animate or human(-like) to

varying degrees. The scene presented two possible referents for the locatum, and

participants decided which referent the description referred to, revealing which reference

frame they used to interpret the sentence. Results showed that reference frame choices

differed systematically between languages. In English, the non-possessive construction (X

is to the left of Y) was consistently associated with the relative reference frame, and the

possessive construction (X is on Y’s left) was associated with the intrinsic reference frame.

In Spanish, the intrinsic interpretation was dominant throughout, except for the non-

possessive construction with relata that were not anthropomorphic, animate, or human. We

discuss the results with respect to the languages’ syntactic repertory, and the notion of

inalienable possession.

Keywords: spatial cognition, animacy, reference frames, perspective choice

3

1. INTRODUCTION

Functioning in space is important for the survival of every species. For humans the

importance of functioning in space is reflected in a rich and complex repertory of spatial

language. How humans make use of this complex repertory is of special interest to

linguistics in general and Cognitive Linguistics in particular (Zlatev, 2007). According to

Carlson and Covell (2005), the most typical goal of spatial language is to inform somebody

of the location of a certain object, and the most effective way to achieve this goal is to

describe that object’s position in relation to another object whose location is known.

Following Tenbrink (2011), this paper uses the terms LOCATUM for the object that needs to

be LOCATED, and RELATUM for the object that the locatum is RELATED to in order to describe

its position. So in The cat is in front of the house, the cat (locatum) is being located in

relation to the house (relatum).

To locate objects, speakers draw on three different types of spatial frames of reference

(Levinson 1996; 2003), which allow us to describe spatial relationships between a locatum

and a relatum based on a perspective (intrinsic or relative frames of reference) or based on

a stable directional system (absolute frame of reference). In an intrinsic frame of reference,

the perspective is provided by the relatum’s intrinsic features, as in The cat is in front of

the car, where front refers to the front part of the car, or The cat is in front of me/you, where

the speaker or hearer serves as relatum and also gives the perspective. In a relative frame

of reference, the speaker’s and/or listener’s perspective is used rather than the relatum’s

intrinsic features, as in The cat is in front of the table from my point of view; here the table

as relatum does not have (nor need) an intrinsic orientation or perspective. Absolute frames

4

of reference rely on some kind of directional system provided by the interactants’ culture

or environment (e.g., compass directions), as in Brighton is south of London.

Over the past decades, cross-cultural research has identified various factors affecting

choice of reference frames. In some cultures, people are constantly aware of the actual

(absolute) directions in space, as if they had an inbuilt compass; and some cultures do not

seem to use a relative reference system at all (Danziger, 1996; Gaby, 2012; Levinson,

2003). However, the preferences and choices of reference frames in cultures that use all of

the three kinds are still poorly understood. The need for a closer look at factors pertaining

to the situation and context in which a spatial reference frame is used, rather than

overarching cultural ones, has been repeatedly emphasised, as different studies tend to

reveal different preferences within a culture (Tenbrink, 2007). Such factors do not have to

be situation-specific; languages often exhibit grammatical and/or usage patterns based on

more generic features, such as animacy, dynamics, schematicity, and the like (Talmy,

2000).

In this paper, we compare the relative impact of object properties such as animacy and

choice of syntactic construction on spatial reference frame choices for the lateral axis (i.e.

left or right) in English and Spanish. These languages differ with respect to the syntactic

constructions available for spatial reference. In addition, both languages have structures

that are affected by animacy (see Section 1.3). Here we ask to what extent animacy and

related features of the relatum influence perspective choice (and, thus, reference frame

selection) in differently worded spatial descriptions in these two languages. Consider

statements (1) and (2):

(1) The ball is to the right of the chair.

5

(2) The ball is to David’s right.

[Insert Figure 1 here]

There are two possible interpretations for each statement, as shown in Figure 1. These

interpretations depend on whether the speaker keeps his or her own perspective (i.e. uses

the relative frame of reference; see Figure 1, left) or adopts the relatum’s perspective (i.e.

uses the intrinsic frame of reference; see Figure 1, right). Intuitively, for some speakers,

the version on the left may be more suitable if the relatum is inanimate and a non-possessive

construction is used as in statement (1), and the version on the right would be preferred for

a human relatum that is referred to in a possessive construction as in statement (2). Part of

the reason for this intuition is that chairs, unlike humans, arguably do not have very clearly

assigned intrinsic left and right sides, which makes the relative reference frame more

reliable. In fact, even when the relatum has intrinsic sides, producing and interpreting

spatial descriptions dealing with the lateral axis may still incur an increase in processing

resources. In their Spatial Framework Theory, Franklin and Tversky (1990) argue that the

lateral axis is cognitively challenging due to the lack of salient asymmetries between left

and right. In contrast, gravity facilitates the distinction between above and below (vertical

axis), and front and back (sagittal axis) of a body is perceptually and functionally

asymmetric.

However, the availability of orientational features alone does not fully account for the

systematic preference of a reference frame over another. Languages (and their speakers)

deal in different ways with other generic object features such as animacy, as will be

discussed in forthcoming sections. Furthermore, even though chairs may not have a clearly

assigned intrinsic right side, it is still not wrong to refer to a chair’s right, but the chosen

6

syntactic construction (to the chair’s right vs. to the right of the chair) may play a separate

role when choosing a reference frame. The present study aims to clarify what speakers’

preferences might be in English and in Spanish. It specifically addresses the impact of

animacy and syntactic construction on reference frame selection as potential generic factors

that may systematically affect reference frame choices. In the following sections, we will

first discuss reference frame choice more generally, and then take a closer look at the two

main factors in our study, syntactic constructions and animacy.

1.1. Spatial perspective choice: is there a default frame of reference?

The literature offers conflicting views as to the existence of a default reference frame in

English, and evidence for Spanish is sparse. The earlier literature started out with

theoretical considerations based on limited empirical evidence; for instance, Miller and

Johnson-Laird (1976) argued that English speakers tend to favour the intrinsic reference

frame, and Carroll (1997) extrapolated a similar idea from some empirical findings. In

contrast, Levelt (1989) and Levinson (2003) suggested that the speaker’s perspective is

predominant in English, leading to a preference for the relative reference frame even when

the object in question is not directly related to the speaker as relatum. In line with the latter

view, Herrmann and Grabowski (1994) argued that listeners should assume that the speaker

is using his or her own perspective unless otherwise specified. This is in accordance with

studies suggesting that the cognitive effort of taking someone else’s perspective is greater

than keeping one’s own (e.g., Nan, Li, Sun, Wang & Liu, 2016; von Wolff, 2001).

However, based on an increasing body of evidence it has been repeatedly suggested that

perspective choice is highly flexible and context-dependent and may vary relative to

7

different communicative needs (e.g., Schober, 1998; Tenbrink, 2007; Tversky, 1996), such

as taking the addressee’s perspective to facilitate comprehension (Hund, Haney & Seanor,

2008; Tversky, 1996). This is in line with the wider literature on different perspectives in

discourse (e.g., Dancygier & Sweetser, 2012), which suggests that speakers are highly

aware of different viewpoints and adjust their references accordingly. In this light, the idea

of a default reference frame may need to be questioned altogether; instead, speakers may

flexibly choose from the available repertory according to communicative purposes.

Depending on the demands of the situation, they might switch perspectives. This generally

happens implicitly, with no explicit signposting in language (Tversky, 1996).

Bowerman (1996) suggested that children born in a particular linguistic and/or cultural

context conceptualise space according to the requirements of their native language. This

view is consistent with the Whorfian view (Whorf, 1956) that language, to some degree,

determines thought (see Danziger, 2011; Levinson, 1996, 2003, for recent advocates of this

view as applied to spatial cognition and spatial language). In particular, Danziger (1998)

emphasised the need to consider the role that cultural and social factors play in the domain

of spatial cognition. However, it may not always be clear whether the tendency to employ

a certain reference frame under certain circumstances is due to some specific formal

characteristics of the language in question, or to sociocultural factors that influence

individual conceptualisation (Danziger, 1998; Talmy, 2000), or to the situational context

itself (Vorwerg & Weiß, 2010). Generally, whenever linguistic constructions are not

associated with specific reference frames (e.g., behind the car can be interpreted in more

than one way), any patterns of preference in speakers of a language must be based on other

influencing factors. In some cultures, specific environmental circumstances facilitate the

8

use of absolute reference frames, as in the case of expressions meaning ‘downhill’ and

‘uphill’, which speakers ubiquitously use as directions in languages like Tzeltal (Brown &

Levinson, 1993) and Gawwada (Tosco, 2012), or directions referring to the north and south

banks of a local river as in Kuuk Thaayorre (Gaby, 2012).

Situational, object-related, or linguistic factors can influence which reference frame the

speaker may be employing. Keysar, Barr and Horton (1998) found that speakers tend to

use their own perspective for the production of spatial instructions under time constraints,

which suggests that the initial ‘instinct’ in the utterance-making process is egocentric.

Somewhat contrarily, Miller and Johnson-Laird (1976) suggested that interpretation of

spatial descriptions depends primarily on the relatum’s features: if the object serving as

relatum has intrinsic sides, the most likely interpretation is an intrinsic one and vice versa.

In our study, we address the impact of object features (beyond the existence of intrinsic

sides) by looking at different degrees and aspects of animacy (see Section 1.3), and

additionally examine the potential effects of the different linguistic repertories in English

and Spanish (see next section).

1.2 Syntactic constructions in English and Spanish

In English, there are two main ways to describe lateral static configurations: as a

possessive construction involving the Saxon genitive (i.e. the ’s particle denoting

possession, as in X is on Y’s left/right), and in a non-possessive way (X is to the left/right

of Y). Some authors associate the possessive version primarily with an intrinsic reference

frame, and claim that the non-possessive version is more likely to suggest a relative

reference frame (Levelt, 1996; Levinson, 2003). Evidence for this view comes from

9

Robinette, Feist and Kalish (2010), who found that possessive constructions like the teacup

to the teapot’s left triggered an intrinsic interpretation significantly more often than non-

possessive constructions such as the teacup to the left of the teapot, particularly when

fronted relata (i.e. relata with an intrinsic front) were used.

The motivation for comparing languages in the present study follows up on this

linguistic factor. If different constructions lead to the preference of a specific reference

frame, the availability of construction types in different languages should affect patterns of

reference frame choice. We chose to compare reference frame selection in English with

Spanish because of a decisive difference between these languages: Spanish lacks a

possessive structure using the Saxon genitive, such as the English X is on Y’s left/right, to

express possession. In Spanish, the most common construction is X está a la

izquierda/derecha de Y (cf. Romo Simón, 2016), which corresponds to the English non-

possessive construction X is to the left/right of Y. Alternatively, the speaker may use a

marked possessive construction, mainly for clarification in order to refer back to a

previously mentioned relatum, as in Veo Y. X está a su izquierda/derecha (I see Y. X is on

its left/right). This construction is superficially similar to the English possessive

construction X is on Y’s left/right. Nonetheless, it must be noted that these are not

equivalent expressions, as the Spanish version is only possible with a possessive adjective

that refers back to a previously mentioned relatum, whereas the English construction can

stand alone and use any kind of nominal phrase. This difference may prove to be decisive

in reference frame choice, since research has suggested that the English possessive

construction is often associated with the intrinsic reference frame (Robinette et al., 2010).

10

1.3. Animacy

Feist and Gentner (2003: 394) defined animate objects as those “that are capable of self-

determination”, acknowledging that the definition may vary cross-linguistically. The role

that animacy plays in the construction of different linguistic structures has received

considerable interest in linguistic research and its impact has been widely acknowledged

in a number of typologically unrelated languages (e.g., Bernárdez, 2016; Yamamoto,

1999). For English, Rosenbach (2002, 2008) studied the relationship between animacy,

word order, and grammatical variation concerning the Saxon genitive. Results indicate that

animate possessors occur more often in pre-nominal genitive constructions (e.g., John’s

house) than post-nominal genitive constructions (e.g., the house of John), whereas the

opposite holds for inanimate objects. Since Spanish has no construction equivalent to the

Saxon genitive, there cannot be any such effects for this language. Similarly, Feist and

Gentner (2003) showed that having an animate relatum (e.g., a hand) supported the use of

the preposition in rather than on to describe the position of the locatum. In Spanish, in

contrast, the preposition en more or less covers all uses of in, on and at when these describe

spatial relationships (for more extensive information on Spanish prepositions, see López,

1998).

Crucially, a study by Surtees, Noordzij and Apperly (2012) showed that English

speakers from the age of eight onwards tended to consider the intrinsic frame more

appropriate in scenes with a human relatum, but considered the relative frame more

appropriate for non-human relata. However, their study was only concerned with the

sagittal axis (i.e. front/back) and the non-possessive construction. The question thus arises

11

as to whether we can find a similar effect in lateral scenes with different linguistic

constructions.

To our knowledge, the impact of animacy on spatial language in Spanish has not been

studied. Yet, various kinds of structures are affected by the presence of an animate entity

in this language. For example, the preposition a (usually translated as to) is added to

accusative constructions (which mark the direct object of a transitive verb, for example,

him in the English Have you seen him?) when the direct object is a human (Torrego

Salcedo, 1999) or an animal, although probably to a lesser extent for the latter. Thus,

constructions like ¿Has visto mi monedero? (Have you seen my purse?) require the addition

of a when the direct object is human, as in ¿Has visto a David? (Have you seen David?),

or an animal, as in ¿Has visto al perro? (Have you seen the dog?; al results from combining

the preposition a and the masculine singular definite article el). In English, in contrast, the

presence of an animate direct object does not trigger any structural changes in accusative

constructions.

Thus, animacy plays a role in the choice of syntactic constructions in both languages,

albeit in quite dissimilar ways, in areas relevant to spatial cognition and language. This

motivates our hypothesis that animacy may affect reference frame selection in the two

languages in different ways.

1.4. The current study

As outlined in the previous sections, there is evidence that both syntactic construction

and animacy may affect reference frame choice in English and Spanish. However, there

are still significant gaps. To our knowledge, there are no relevant data on Spanish reference

12

frame choices, little evidence on the actual effects of syntactic construction in English, and

even less direct evidence on the effects of animacy. Moreover, in spite of indications that

syntactic construction and animacy may be interrelated and interact in their effects on

language use, there has been no previous attempt, to our knowledge, to disentangle these

two factors. In our study, we address these gaps as follows. In two experiments, we address

the impact of animacy on the interpretation of static lateral configurations in English and

Spanish when dealing with non-possessive (i.e. X is to the left/right of Y) and possessive

(i.e. X is on Y’s left/right) constructions. Along with this, we aim to gather empirical data

to address the question of a preferred frame of reference in non-possessive static lateral

configurations in English. The reviewed literature motivates the following hypotheses:

1. Syntactic construction in English: Based on Levelt’s (1996) and Levinson’s (2003)

claims, supported by Robinette et al.’s (2010) findings on inanimate relata, we

hypothesise that English-speaking participants will prefer the relative frame of

reference for the non-possessive construction. In line with Robinette et al.’s (2010)

results, we hypothesise that participants will mainly activate an intrinsic frame of

reference for the possessive construction.

2. Animacy in English: Similar to results from Surtees et al. (2012) with frontal

configurations in English, we expect that relata with a higher animacy level will

decrease participants’ preference for the relative reference frame.

3. Syntactic construction in Spanish: Since Spanish does not have two unmarked

syntactic constructions to express attributive possession, we expect syntactic

13

construction to have less of an effect on reference frame selection in Spanish than

in English.

4. Animacy in Spanish: Animate and human relata in either linguistic construction (i.e.

non-possessive or possessive) in Spanish may either (a) lead to a higher preference

for the intrinsic reference frame as compared to inanimate relata, or (b) not

influence reference frame choice. When presented with scenes with animate relata,

Spanish speakers may (c) use the intrinsic frame of reference more often than

English speakers, (d) use the relative frame of reference more often than English

speakers, or (e) not show a distinctive tendency for either reference frame compared

to English-speaking participants.

Although we designed Experiment 1 (English) and Experiment 2 (Spanish) to be

sufficiently similar to allow for data comparison across the two languages, we will first

report them separately in order to address the impact of animacy and syntactic construction

within each language.

2. EXPERIMENT 1: ENGLISH

In Experiment 1, we investigated whether linguistic construction and animacy of the

relatum influence reference frame selection in English.

2.1. Method

2.1.1. Participants

14

A total of 22 (8 male; mean age = 33.64; SD = 13.92) native English speakers with little

or no knowledge of Spanish participated in the study. Seven of the participants considered

themselves to be fluent in a language other than Spanish. Participants were offered to enter

a raffle to win a £30 gift voucher.

2.1.2. Materials and procedure

To assess the impact of animacy on the participants’ frame of reference choices, we

developed an animacy scale based on Rosenbach’s scale of inanimate < animate < human

(2008: 164). Importantly, the ‘inanimate’ category was further refined by adding two extra

criteria that can easily –although not necessarily– relate to animate entities: sidedness and

anthropomorphism. Thus, anthropomorphic inanimate objects were considered more

animate than inanimate sided objects, which were in turn considered more animate than

inanimate unsided objects. In sum, object types used as relatum were based on the four

categorical criteria just mentioned: sidedness, anthropomorphism, animacy, and

humanness. Combining these criteria yielded the five different object types shown in (3).

We labelled the three inanimate object types as unsided, sided, and anthropomorphic based

on the additional criteria mentioned above. The object type labels animate and human

follow Rosenbach (2008). The five object types can be grouped in the following chain from

least (unsided) to most (human) human-like:

(3) Object types used in the current study:

unsided: – sides, – anthropomorphic, – animate, – human (e.g., a vase)

sided: + sides, – anthropomorphic, – animate, – human (e.g., a car)

15

anthropomorphic: + sides, + anthropomorphic, – animate, – human (e.g., a statue)

animate: + sides, – anthropomorphic, + animate, – human (e.g., a dog)

human: + sides, + anthropomorphic, + animate, + human (e.g., a woman)

Each of the five object types comprised six different objects, for a total of 30 objects.

All picture stimuli (see examples in Figures 2a and 2b) showed a human avatar facing the

front of an object, which served as relatum within the spatial scene. For consistency, all

objects shown were photographs. Most objects used as relatum were adapted (i.e. cropped

and resized) from freely accessible photos from Wikimedia Commons. The first author

photographed the remaining objects. A table listing all the objects used as relatum is

included in the Appendix. On both (lateral) sides of the relatum were blue circles

representing two balls (A and B), which show the possible locations of the locatum.

Next to the avatar was a speech bubble showing a spatial description using either a non-

possessive construction (e.g., I see a vase. The ball is to the right of the vase) or a possessive

construction (e.g., I see a vase. The ball is on the vase’s right). While all object types were

shown to all participants as a within-subjects factor, linguistic construction was a between-

subjects factor with half the participants experiencing only the non-possessive construction

(non-possessive condition) and the other half only the possessive constructions (possessive

condition). In both conditions, half of the instructions involved the use of left and right,

respectively. Overall, the experiment had a 5 (within-subjects; object type) x 2 (between-

subjects; linguistic construction) design.

In addition to the 30 target stimuli scenes, the experiment included 60 filler scenes that

used the same type of instruction and linguistic construction as the target scenes, but

16

featured projective terms involving the frontal (e.g. behind) and vertical (e.g. above) axes.

Thus, participants interpreted instructions such as I see a bucket. The ball is behind the

bucket or I see a bucket. The ball is on the bucket’s back. Since these instructions were

unambiguous in this scenario, they were not included in the analysis.


The experiment was created using OpenSesame 2.9.6 (cf. Mathôt, Schreij & Theeuwes,

2012). Prior to the actual experiment, participants filled in a questionnaire indicating their

age, gender and knowledge of languages other than English. The main task for participants

was to decide whether the locatum, i.e. the ball, was in location A or B (see Figure) as

based on their interpretation of the spatial description presented in the speech bubble. To

choose location A, they had to press key A (labelled A) and to choose location B, they had

to press key L (labelled B) on the computer’s keyboard. To make sure they understood the

task, participants received written and spoken instructions and completed one practice trial.

Stimuli were presented in three blocks, each containing a set of 30 pictures, for a total of

90 pictures. Each block comprised 10 target (2 per object type) and 20 filler scenes for each

participant, in random order within a block. Participants were allowed to take a break

between each of the blocks.

The statistical analysis was carried out in R (R Core Team, 2019) using mixed logit

models (cf. Baayen, 2008). These models are appropriate for binary response variables (i.e.

intrinsic vs. relative frame of reference). Due to the relatively small number of participants

in this and the following experiment, we checked whether we had sufficient amounts of

17

observations for all analyses. Specifically, mixed logit models require ten times as many

observations or more of the less frequent kind as predictors in the model (Jaeger, 2011; see

Peduzzi, Concato, Kemper, Holford & Feinstein, 1996, for simulations). Fewer

observations of the less frequent kind may lead to overfitting, such that the model would

describe the sample and would not allow generalisation to the population. All major

analyses presented throughout the paper have sufficient numbers of observations of the less

frequent kind (cf. Jaeger, 2011).

The appropriate statistical models were determined through model comparisons (cf.

Baayen, 2008). The full model included sentence construction (possessive vs. non-

possessive), object type (five levels from unsided to human) and the sentence construction

by object type interaction as fixed effects (all centred and sum-coded) and participant and

item as random effects. Random slopes for the within-subject factor object type were

included for both participant and item (cf. Barr, Levy, Scheepers & Tily, 2013; Winter &

Wieling, 2016). To check if the full fixed and random effects structures were needed, model

comparisons were conducted. Fixed and random factors that did not reliably improve

model fit were removed from the model. If a model did not converge, the random or fixed

effects structure was simplified until the model converged. Data and R scripts for this paper

are available at: https://osf.io/krzqd/?view_only=58ee6816cb6a480a9743823828bf36ac.

2.2. Results

We first investigated whether the object type and the sentence construction influenced

reference frame choices. Figure 3 shows the relative frequency of intrinsic and relative

frames of reference for the five different object types and the sentence construction

https://osf.io/krzqd/?view_only=58ee6816cb6a480a9743823828bf36ac

18

conditions. Participants in the non-possessive condition overwhelmingly chose the relative

frame of reference (305 out of 330 relative responses: 92.42%), whereas participants in the

possessive condition overwhelmingly chose the intrinsic frame of reference (318 out of

330 intrinsic responses: 96.36%). In addition, the percentage of intrinsic responses

increases as the degree of animacy rises, suggesting that object type seems to affect the

choice of frame of reference, if only to a limited extent.


The final statistical model1 included sentence construction and object type as fixed

effects and no random effects. It showed a significant main effect of both sentence

construction (logit estimate = 3.11; std. error = 0.22, z = 14.46, p < 0.001) and object type

(logit estimate = 0.72; std. error = 0.2, z = 3.66, p < 0.001) on frame of reference choices.

Thus, the possessive construction led to a substantial increase in intrinsic frame of

reference choices compared to the non-possessive construction. Frame of reference choices

also differed depending on object type. We conducted post-hoc tests using the emmeans

package in R to determine for which particular object types the frame of reference choices

differed reliably. Results only revealed significantly more intrinsic frame of reference

choices for human compared to unsided relata (logit estimate = -2.17; std. error = 0.6, z =

-3.64, p < 0.01), that is, only for the end points of our animacy continuum.

As the final model includes no random effects, we report the marginal R2 value for

generalized linear mixed effects models (R2GLMM; Johnson, 2014; Nakagawa & Schielzeth,

1 glm(RefFrame ~ ConstructionCS+RelatumTypeCS, data = Eng, family = binomial)

19

2013; Nakagawa, Johnson, & Schielzeth, 2017), which captures the variance explained by

a model’s fixed factors, to gauge effect size. In addition, we report odds ratios (Baguley,

2009). The marginal R2 value for the final statistical model above is 0.76, suggesting that

about three quarters of the variance in reference frame selections can be explained through

the fixed factors sentence construction and object type. Odds ratios were calculated from

the final statistical model reported above, but using treatment coding. The odds of choosing

the relative frame of reference for the non-possessive construction are 508.45 times larger

than for the possessive construction. The odds of choosing a relative frame of reference for

unsided relata are 8.77 times larger than for human relata.

2.3. Discussion

In general, the results from Experiment 1 show that reference frame selection in English

is affected more by the sentence construction (non-possessive or possessive) that the

speaker uses than by the type of object used as relatum. Although there is no one-to-one

correspondence between a reference frame and a specific construction, i.e. the reference

frame distinction is not grammaticalised as such (Tenbrink, 2007), speakers seem to

converge on very strong tendencies. The reason for this may partially lie in the

experimental design: linguistic construction was a between-subject factor and participants

may have a tendency to be consistent in an experimental setting with respect to their own

reference frame choice (Vorwerg, 2009). While increased animacy did lead to an increase

20

in intrinsic reference frame use, this increase was only significant for the end points of our

animacy continuum.

Overall, our results are in line with our first hypothesis, which stated that participants

would prefer a relative reference frame for the non-possessive construction and an intrinsic

reference frame for the possessive construction. Thus, the results support Levelt’s (1996)

and Levinson’s (2003) claim that non-possessive constructions involving lateral projective

terms typically trigger the use of the relative frame of reference in English, whereas

possessive constructions typically trigger the intrinsic frame of reference. This claim had

found empirical support in Robinette et al.’s (2010) study, but our findings extend it insofar

as we could determine that type of construction affected speakers’ choices far more than

animacy did. Our results also contradict Miller and Johnson-Laird’s (1976) claim that the

sidedness of the relatum plays a decisive role in favour of the intrinsic reference frame

since we found no significant difference in frame of reference choices for unsided and sided

relata.

With respect to the non-possessive construction, Bateman, Hois, Ross and Tenbrink

(2011) suggested that because of the inherent ambiguity in the construction, co-present

interactants would benefit from agreeing on the perspective used. In this regard, our results

indicate that listeners’ interpretations can be quite systematic, suggesting that

disambiguation may not always be needed.

In addition, our results add to those from Surtees et al. (2012), whose study showed that

English speakers from the age of eight onwards tended to consider the intrinsic reference

frame more appropriate for the non-possessive construction and a human relatum, and the

relative reference frame for the non-possessive construction and a non-human relatum.

21

Since their approach only concerned the sagittal axis, the present study does not contradict

their findings, but instead suggests that the pattern identified for static frontal

configurations does not apply to static lateral ones. This may be related to the idiosyncrasy

of the lateral axis and its specific complexity (Franklin & Tversky, 1990).

3. EXPERIMENT 2: SPANISH

In Experiment 2, we investigate the possible effect of linguistic construction and

animacy of the relatum on reference frame selection in Spanish.

3.1. Method

3.1.1. Participants

A total of 26 native Spanish speakers (19 male; mean age = 48.5; SD = 8.39) with little

or no knowledge of English participated. One of the 26 participants reported to be fluent

in a language other than English (which was not a criterion for exclusion). Two additional

participants were excluded, one for misunderstanding the linguistic stimuli and one due to

a learning difficulty. As before, participants were offered to enter a raffle to win a €30 gift

voucher.

3.1.2. Materials and procedure

Experiment 2 employed the same materials and procedure as Experiment 1, except that

the linguistic prompt in the speech bubble was presented in Spanish. Again, linguistic

construction (possessive vs. non-possessive) was a between-subject factor, and object type

(five levels from unsided to human) was a within-subject factor. Again, the visual stimuli

22

showed blue circles on both (lateral) sides of a relatum, which represented two balls (A

and B) and indicated the possible locations of the locatum. Participants were asked to locate

the ball according to their interpretation of descriptions like Veo una vasija. La pelota está

a la derecha de la vasija (I see a vase. The ball is to the right of the vase) in the case of the

non-possessive condition, and Veo una vasija. La pelota está a su derecha (I see a vase.

The ball is to its right) in the case of the possessive condition.

3.2. Results

The data analysis followed the same structure as in Experiment 1. Thus, we first

investigated whether object type and sentence construction influenced reference frame

choices. Figure 4 shows the relative frequencies of intrinsic and relative reference frame

choices for the five different object types and the two sentence construction conditions.

The figure shows that participants in both the non-possessive condition and the possessive

condition overall preferred the intrinsic over the relative frame of reference (65.90%, i.e.

257 out of 390, intrinsic responses for the non-possessive condition and 93.03%, i.e. 307

out of 330, intrinsic responses for the possessive condition). Thus, unlike the English-

speaking participants in Experiment 1, participants in this experiment numerically

favoured the relative frame of reference for unsided and sided relata only, but preferred the

intrinsic frame of reference for the other object types. Similar to the English-speaking

participants in Experiment 1, participants in this experiment overwhelmingly chose the

intrinsic frame of reference for the possessive construction.


23

The statistical analysis procedure for reference frame choices was the same as in

Experiment 1. The final statistical model2 included sentence construction and object type

as fixed effects and random slopes of object type for each participant in the random effects

structure. The model showed a significant main effect of both sentence construction (logit

estimate = 1.73; std. error = 0.6, z = 2.9, p < 0.01) and object type (logit estimate = 1.86;

std. error = 0.42, z = 4.42, p < 0.001) on frame of reference choices. The reliable effect of

sentence construction again reflects the fact that the possessive construction led to an

increase in intrinsic frame of reference choices compared to the non-possessive

construction. The reliable effect of object type shows that frame of reference choices

differed depending on object type. Table 1 shows the results from post-hoc tests using the

emmeans package in R to determine for which particular object types the frame of

reference choices differed. The results show that both unsided and sided relata had

significantly fewer intrinsic frame of reference choices than anthropomorphic, animate and

human relata.

[Insert Table 1 here]

As the final model includes random intercepts and slopes, we report marginal and

conditional R2 values for generalized linear mixed effects models (R2GLMM; Johnson, 2014;

Nakagawa & Schielzeth, 2013; Nakagawa et al., 2017) to gauge effect sizes. As before, we

also report odds ratios (Baguley, 2009). The marginal R2GLMM value for the final statistical

model above, which captures the variance explained by the model’s fixed factors, is 0.35,

2 glmer(RefFrame ~ Construction+RelatumType + (1+RelatumType|Participant), data = Span, family = binomial)

24

suggesting that less than half of the variance in reference frame selections can be explained

through the fixed factors sentence construction and object type. The conditional R2GLMM

value for the final statistical model above, which captures the variance explained by the

model’s fixed and random factors, is 0.79, suggesting that the random effects structure

contributes about as much to the variance in reference frame selections as do the fixed

effects.

As in Experiment 1, we calculated odds ratios using the final statistical model and

treatment coding. The odds of choosing the relative frame of reference for the non-

possessive construction are 34.27 times larger than for the possessive construction. The

odds of choosing the relative frame of reference for unsided relata are 349.39 times larger

than for human relata, 50.71 times larger than for animate relata, and 18.95 times larger

than for anthropomorphic relata.

3.3. Discussion

The results of Experiment 2 show that both object type and sentence construction affect

Spanish native speakers’ frame of reference choices. There was an overall preference for

the intrinsic frame of reference, which was significantly stronger for the possessive

construction than the non-possessive construction. Interestingly, in only two situations did

participants show a numerical preference for the relative frame of reference, namely when

the non-possessive construction was used and the relatum was unsided or sided. This is in

line with Hypothesis 4a, which stated more relative reference frame choices for inanimate

relata compared to animate and human relata as one of the possible outcomes. A direct

visual comparison of the Spanish and English results suggests a considerably stronger

25

preference for intrinsic frame of reference choices for Spanish than English. This effect

seems to be driven by the non-possessive construction, for which – in contrast to the

possessive construction – native Spanish speakers selected an intrinsic frame of reference

more frequently than native English speakers. To confirm this, we performed statistical

analyses comparing data from both languages.

3.4. Comparison of Experiments 1 and 2

Our final analysis compares the results from Experiments 1 and 2 in order to address

the cross-linguistic questions brought up in Sections 1.2. and 1.3. The experimental design

was sufficiently similar for the data to be compared, as the visual prompts (i.e. object types)

were identical and the linguistic constructions were as similar as the linguistic repertory of

both languages permits.

The statistical analysis was the same as before, except that Language (English vs.

Spanish) was added as a factor to the fixed effects structure. Model comparison for this

omnibus analysis was done as described above. The final model3 revealed a reliable main

effect of sentence construction (logit estimate = 2.64; std. error = 0.34, z = 7.77, p < 0.001)

with significantly more intrinsic frame choices overall for the possessive compared to the

non-possessive construction. There was also a significant main effect of object type (logit

estimate = 1.19; std. error = 0.13, z = 8.91, p < 0.001), which we will not explore further.

Finally, there was a main effect of language (logit estimate = 1.18; std. error = 0.33, z =

3 glmer(RefFrame ~ ConstructionCS + RelatumTypeCS + LanguageCS + ConstructionCS:LanguageCS + RelatumTypeCS:LanguageCS + (1|Participant),

data = EngSpan, family = binomial)

26

3.63, p < 0.001) with significantly more intrinsic reference frame choices for Spanish

compared to English (the proposed outcome in Hypothesis 4c).

In addition to these main effects, there were significant interactions of sentence

construction and language (logit estimate = -1.2; std. error = 0.33, z = -3.64, p < 0.001) and

object type and language (logit estimate = 0.41; std. error = 0.13, z = 3.04, p < 0.01). To

explore the sentence construction by language interaction, separate models were fit for the

possessive construction and the non-possessive construction. Both models included object

type and language as well as their interaction as fixed effects. Model comparison was done

as above. Of interest for this section are effects involving the factor language.

The final model for the non-possessive construction4 showed a main effect of object

type (logit estimate = 1.2; std. error = 0.16, z = 7.55, p < 0.001) as well as a main effect of

language (logit estimate = 2.43; std. error = 0.54, z = 4.53, p < 0.001). The latter effect

shows that native Spanish speakers selected the intrinsic frame of reference significantly

more frequently than native English speakers for the non-possessive construction. In

addition, there was a reliable object type by language interaction for the non-possessive

construction (logit estimate = 0.55; std. error = 0.16, z = 3.44, p < 0.001), just as in the

omnibus analysis above.

The final model for the possessive construction5 showed only a reliable main effect of

object type (logit estimate = 1.2; std. error = 0.25, z = -4.77, p < 0.001), but included no

fixed effects involving language. There were thus similar numbers of relative and intrinsic

frame of reference choices across the two languages for the possessive construction. In

4 glmer(RefFrame ~ RelatumTypeCS*LanguageCS + (1|Participant), data = non, family = binomial) 5 glmer(RefFrame ~ RelatumTypeCS + (1|Participant), data = poss, family = binomial)

27

particular, both native English and native Spanish participants overwhelmingly selected

the intrinsic frame of reference for the possessive construction.

The object type by language interaction from the omnibus analysis reflects the fact that

animacy affected reference frame selections GRADUALLY in English, with significantly

more intrinsic reference frame choices only for human compared to unsided relata (i.e. the

end points of the animacy continuum), but CATEGORICALLY in Spanish, with significantly

more intrinsic reference frame choices for anthropomorphic, animate and human relata

compared to unsided and sided relata.

4. GENERAL DISCUSSION

Across two experiments, adult participants interpreted spatial descriptions concerning

which side (left or right) an object (locatum) was located relative to another object

(relatum). Results revealed systematic patterns of reference frame selection, with striking

differences between English and Spanish. Although there was a significant object type

effect in both languages, the patterns we see in the post-hoc tests for object type are

different. In English, there is a very slight and gradual increase in intrinsic choices as

animacy increases, but only the end points of this continuum (unsided and human relata)

differ significantly from one another. In contrast, in Spanish, there is no gradual increase

of intrinsic choices as animacy increases. Instead, there is a categorical distinction such

that unsided and sided relata differ reliably from anthropomorphic, animate, and human

relata. In addition, the experiments show that the intrinsic frame of reference is

predominant when a possessive construction is employed, both in English and in Spanish.

28

However, Spanish speakers choose the intrinsic reference frame more often than English

speakers do when a non-possessive construction is used.

Thus, the results open up promising avenues for research on factors guiding reference

frame choice. On one hand, our English data support the claim that choice of grammatical

construction can make people think differently about spatial scenes. Specifically, our

results show that when different linguistic constructions are available in the linguistic

repertory, these constructions can relate to different reference frames, as Levinson (2003)

suggests. On the other hand, our cross-linguistic results highlight the connection between

the speakers’ mother tongue and spatial cognition, and suggest that analogous

constructions (i.e. the non-possessive construction) in different languages can trigger

different conceptualisations. In the following, we take a closer look at each of our main

results and compare the results for English and Spanish.

4.1. Comparative analysis: English and Spanish

Both languages show very similar patterns regarding the possessive construction, with

a clear preference for intrinsic frame of reference choices for all object types. With the non-

possessive construction, in contrast, English speakers clearly preferred the relative frame

of reference for all object types, while Spanish speakers showed a less clear preference for

one reference frame over the other and numerically preferred the intrinsic frame of

reference, except for unsided and sided relata. The latter may be related to the concept of

a body, as Spanish speakers showed a stronger preference for the intrinsic frame of

reference when interpreting non-possessive constructions in static lateral scenes that

involved a relatum with a body compared to relata without a body. In contrast, English

29

speakers did not make this distinction, but overwhelmingly interpreted non-possessive

constructions to indicate a relative reference frame. Tversky (2005) suggested that bodies

constitute a special sort of object within a spatial description because they are experienced

both from the inside and from the outside. Bodies are also an essential condition for

animacy, since animate objects can typically control their body at will under normal

circumstances. Therefore, Tversky’s (2005) suggestion that bodies constitute a special sort

of object aligns well with the reference frame choices we found for Spanish, but not for

English.

This begs the question of why such a difference is registered in two typologically similar

languages. As Talmy (2000) points out, identifying the factors driving reference frame

choice is a difficult task given that employing a certain reference frame might be due to

linguistic reasons (i.e. specific formal characteristics of the language) or factors determined

by the speaker’s environment (cultural, situational, or other). In the following, we argue

that it is precisely the interaction of both linguistic and non-linguistic factors that may cause

the identified patterns. This is because languages (and their speakers) generally deal with

factors such as object properties (which are relevant in specific situations) in different

ways.

4.2. Language-specific differences: the syntactic repertory

In studies by Rosenbach (2002, 2008), the use of animate entities was linked with the

prenominal genitive construction in English (e.g., the dog’s leg), which relates to the

possessive construction in spatial descriptions. That is, when the idea of possession is

applied to an animate possessor, the English language encourages the use of the Saxon

30

genitive. Since Spanish lacks such a construction, we argue, the use of an animate or

animate-like object functioning as relatum enables the attribution of ‘possessive power’ to

this object, which – as a corollary – triggers the use of the intrinsic reference frame

(possibly as an effect of what is known as inalienability, see Section 4.3). Thus, both

English and Spanish are affected by the presence of animate entities in linguistic

expressions, including spatial descriptions. The dissimilarities found between English and

Spanish partly reside in the fact that the former has two unmarked syntactic alternatives to

express attributive possession, whereas the latter has only one (the non-possessive

construction). Therefore, the effect of animacy is more salient in Spanish when construing

static lateral relationships, because its repertory encourages the use of one syntactic

construction. In English, on the contrary, the availability of two unmarked linguistic

alternatives to encode spatial information prevents a salient effect, as animacy typically

relates to the possessive construction in that possessive relations with an animate possessor

are more liable to be coded through the Saxon genitive, as Rosenbach (2002, 2008) pointed

out.

4.3. Language-specific differences: the impact of inalienable possession

The preference in Spanish for an intrinsic interpretation overall and the significantly

stronger preference for the intrinsic interpretation for relata with a body (i.e.

anthropomorphic, animate and human) compared to without (i.e. unsided and sided) may

be due to a specific notion widely acknowledged in the literature: inalienable possession

(Kliffer, 1983; Lamiroy, 2003). This type of possession features an inherent connection

between the possessor (the entity that owns another entity) and the possessum (the entity

31

owned by another entity; e.g., Nieuwenhuijsen, 2008), where the possessum is conceived

of as being inseparable from the possessor (Heine, 1997). In contrast, alienable possession

involves possessor-possessum relationships that are relatively more separable (e.g. a tourist

and his or her suitcase). Importantly, inalienable possession may trigger syntactic

variations, which differ across languages depending on how much of an impact

inalienability has on the language in question. Consider the examples in (4) and (5) from

English and Spanish, respectively:

(4) David lost his leg in an accident

(5) David perd-ió la pierna en un accidente

David lose-3PS-PAST the leg in an accident

‘David lost his leg in an accident’

While English requires the use of a possessive marker, Spanish does not. Replacing the

definite article with a possessive marker would be grammatical, but marked and redundant

in Spanish. In example (5), the possessum pierna (‘leg’) cannot be separated (i.e. alienated)

from its possessor (David). As a consequence, pierna is preceded by a definite article la

(‘the’) instead of the possessive marker su (‘his/her’). As the part-whole possessive

relationship between David and pierna is unmistakable, the possessive relationship is

conveyed without a possessive marker. Importantly, inalienability does not have the same

impact on all languages and in the same way, as what can be considered inalienable varies

across languages (Heine, 1997). In particular, the impact of inalienable possession on

linguistic constructions appears to be greater in Spanish than in English (Lamiroy, 2003)

32

and overall greater in Romance languages than in Germanic languages (Nieuwenhuijsen,

2008).

It is worth noting that some elements are more liable to feature an inalienable

relationship between possessor and possessum than others. Traditionally, kinship terms and

body parts have been analysed as prototypical instances of inalienable possessions (e.g.,

Barker, 1991; Heine, 1997). This can be explained in terms of conceptual distance, a notion

that has been deemed crucial for inalienable possession (Chappell & McGregor, 1989).

Thus, conceptually proximal entities are liable to encode inalienable possessive

relationships, whereas conceptually distant ones typically encode alienable relations.

According to Velázquez-Castillo (1996: 36), the conceptual distance between possessor

and possessum is partly defined by the “degree of permanency” of the latter. That is, the

more permanent a possessum is with respect to its possessor, the more inalienable the

relationship is. Since projective terms (e.g. left, front…) typically emanate from body parts,

and these have a high degree of permanency, it is not surprising that concepts evoking

spatial relations have frequently been considered examples of inalienable possessions.

Of particular relevance is the work by Devylder (2018) on Paamese, an Austronesian

language spoken in Vanuatu. Based on empirical research in the field of psychology and

perception (e.g. De Vignemont, 2017), Devylder argues that the conceptual distance a

possessor perceives between them and a particular body part is smaller for those body parts

that they can control and direct. That is, certain body parts, like the limbs or the head, are

conceived of as more proximal than others, like internal organs. The distinction is mainly,

albeit not exclusively, dependent on the degree of agency of the possessors (humans) over

the possessa (their body parts). Importantly, his study shows a correspondence between

33

conceptually proximal body parts and inalienable structures in Paamese, although the

author points out that this distinction holds both overtly and/or covertly for many other

languages, including English. Again, given that projective terms typically emanate from

conceptually proximal body parts, the link between spatial terms and inalienability appears

difficult to dispute. In fact, spatial terms have been included on various hierarchies of

inalienability (e.g., Chappell & McGregor, 1996; Lichtenberk, Vaid & Chen, 2011;

Nichols, 1992) and, in some languages, they are even more prominent than kin and

bodyparts, as in the case of Mandarin (Chappell & Thompson, 1992) or Ewe (Ameka,

1996).

We suggest that Spanish is another language where inalienability plays a crucial role for

encoding spatial scenes. Specifically, animate-like relata may prompt the use of the

intrinsic frame of reference in static lateral configurations because the lateral side

expressed by the projective term (i.e. left or right) is understood as an inherent and

inalienable element of the relatum when it has animate-like attributes. Hence, both

projective terms izquierda (‘left’) and derecha (‘right’) belong to the relatum rather than

to the observers. For example, in the spatial description La pelota está a la izquierda de

David (The ball is to the left of David) the projective term left is conceived of as inherent

to the animate relatum, David, and therefore belongs primarily to him, and not to the

speaker. Consequently, this spatial description triggers the activation of the intrinsic frame

of reference instead of the relative one. The same, we argue, holds for relata in our

anthropomorphic and animate categories, since these object types also possess a body. For

the non-possessive construction, Spanish speakers show a significantly stronger preference

for their own perspective (in a relative reference frame) when the relatum is neither human,

34

animate nor anthropomorphic, i.e. when the relatum is an entity that is not typically

conceived of as something that can possess anything. For example, cars and vases typically

do not possess anything. In contrast, there is no such distinction in English because the

impact of inalienable possession is not as important as in Spanish.

The differences that we have identified between Spanish and English in this and the

previous sections highlight the intricate interplay between the languages we speak and the

conceptual patterns we express (such as reference frames). While language, as seen in our

study, may not strictly determine conceptual patterns, we can indeed identify strong

preferences for a particular reference frame and relate them back to the grammatical

resources of the languages, along with animacy. This contributes to the ongoing debates

on linguistic relativity, and offers a chance to further explore the degree to which speakers

are influenced by their native language.

For instance, the current result opens up an exciting scope for studies exploring

reference frame selection in bilingual speakers. Recently, Meakins, Jones and Algy (2016)

found an increase in relative frame choices in speakers of Gurindji who attended tertiary-

level education in English. Earlier contributions suggested bilingualism as a possible factor

affecting perspective switches in speakers of various languages (e.g., Eggleston, Benedicto

& Balna, 2011, Hernández-Green, Palancar & Hernández, 2011; Levinson, 2003; Polian

& Bohnemeyer, 2011; Romero Méndez, 2011), but did not address this issue directly.

However, various authors (e.g., Kleiner, 2004; O’Meara, 2011; Pérez-Báez, 2011)

explicitly point to the need for assessing the role of bilingualism in reference frame

selection. Studying the effects of this specific discrepancy in Spanish-English bilinguals

35

would thus allow for addressing the question of linguistic relativity from a new angle, as

the interplay between linguistic and cognitive aspects is particularly neat in this case.

5. Conclusion

Interpretations of spatial descriptions for lateral static configurations in English and in

Spanish are affected by syntactic construction and by animacy, although in different ways.

This study sheds light on the question of what factors drive the preference for one reference

frame over another in English and Spanish. Based on our results, we propose that the

overall preference for the intrinsic frame observed in Spanish in our setting is in large part

due to the notion of inalienable possession. Only when the relatum was not a typical or

possible possessor, and thus not easily conceived of as an inherent and inalienable part of

the relatum, did Spanish speakers tend to abandon their preference for the intrinsic frame

of reference and show a significant increase in using their own perspective. In contrast,

English speakers selected reference frames primarily on the basis of syntactic construction,

suggesting that the grammatical construction made English speakers think differently about

spatial scenes. This was perhaps facilitated by the fact that both constructions are unmarked

in English, contrasting with Spanish. The concept of inalienable possession does not seem

to be as influential in English as it is in Spanish. Instead, if speakers wish to signify a

possessive relationship, they can do so by virtue of the possessive construction. Thus, the

linguistic features described in the previous section and the differing impact of inalienable

possession work together to cause a distinct pattern across the two languages.

Our study hence sheds light on the impact that animacy and construction type might

have on spatial interpretations. Further research can complement the present paper by

approaching the impact of animacy on static lateral scenes in different languages.

36

Specifically, analyses focussing on either Germanic or Romance languages will serve to

enhance the account of the tendencies described in this article. Finally, future research

should also address how Spanish-English bilinguals construe frames of reference in their

two languages. Studies of this kind would shed light on the linguistic relativity debate and

would provide insight into spatial cognition in bilingual minds.

37

APPENDIX

List of objects used as relatum in target scenes

Object type Relatum Target side indicated by

the stimulus

unsided Tree Left

Rock Left

Table Left

Bottle Right

Barrel Right

Vase Right

sided

Tractor Left

TV Left

Car Left

Motorbike Right

Chair Right

Bike Right

anthropomorphic Robot Left

Gnome Left

Sculpture Left

Scarecrow Right

Mannequin Right

Statue Right

38

animate Sheep Left

Cow Left

Eagle Left

Gorilla Right

Cobra Right

Dog Right

human Man 1 (Daniel) Left

Woman 1 (Emma) Left

Man 2 (David) Left

Woman 2 (Julia) Right

Man 3 (Samuel) Right

Woman 3 (Laura) Right

39

References:

Ameka, F. (1996). Body parts in Ewe Grammar. In Hillary Chappell and William

McGregor (eds.), The grammar of inalienability: A typological perspective on

body part terms and the part-whole relation (pp. 783–840). Berlin: Mouton de

Gruyter.

Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Baguley, T. (2009). Standardized or simple effect size: What should be reported? British

Journal of Psychology 100(3), 603-617. DOI:10.1348/000712608X377117

Barker, C. (1991). Possessive Descriptions. Doctoral Dissertation. UMI Dissertation

Services.

Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C. & Tily, H.J. (2013). Random effects structure for

confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and

Language 68(3), 255-278. DOI:10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001

Bateman, J. A., Hois, J., Ross, R. & Tenbrink, T. (2011). A linguistic ontology of space

for natural language processing. Artificial Intelligence 174, 1027–1071.

DOI:10.1016/j.artint.2010.05.008

Bernárdez, E. (2016). Viaje lingüístico por el mundo: Iniciación a la tipología de las

lenguas. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.

Bowerman, M. (1996). Learning How to Structure Space for Language: A Crosslinguistic

Perspective. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, and M. F. Garrett (eds.),

Language and Space (pp. 385-436). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001

40

Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1993). "Uphill" and "Downhill" in Tzeltal. Journal of

Linguistic Anthropology 3, 46–74. DOI: 10.1525/jlin.1993.3.1.46.

Carlson, L. A. & Covell, E. (2005). Defining Functional Features for Spatial Language.

In L. Carlson and E. van der Zee (eds.), Functional Features in Language and

Space: Insights from Perception, Categorization, and Development (pp. 175-190).

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Carroll, M. (1997). Changing place in English and German: Language-specific

preferences in the conceptualization of spatial relations. In J. Nuyts and E.

Pederson (eds.), Language and Conceptualization (pp. 137–161). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Chappell, H. & McGregor, W. (1989). Alienability, Inalienability and Nominal

Classification. Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley

Linguistics Society (1989) (pp. 24-36). DOI: 10.3765/bls.v15i0.1734.

Chappell, H. & McGregor, W. (1996). Prolegomena to a theory of inalienability. In

Hillary Chappell and William McGregor (eds.), The grammar of inalienability: A

typological perspective on body part terms and the part-whole relation (pp. 3-

30). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Chappell, H. & Thompson, S. A. (1992). Semantics and Pragmatics of associative de in

Mandarin Discourse. Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale 21(2), 199–229.

DOI : 10.1163/19606028-90000330

Dancygier, B. & Sweetser, E. (eds.). (2012). Viewpoint in language: A multimodal

perspective. Cambridge University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1163/19606028-90000330

41

Danziger, E. (1996). Parts and their counterparts: spatial and social relationships in

Mopan Maya. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 2(1), 67–82. DOI:

10.2307/3034633

Danziger, E. (1998). Introduction: Language, Space and Culture. Ethos 26(1), 3–6.

Danziger, E. (2011). Distinguishing three-dimensional forms from their mirror-images:

Whorfian results from users of intrinsic frames of linguistic reference. Language

Sciences, 33, 853–867. DOI:10.1016/j.langsci.2011.06.008

De Vignemont, F. (2017). Agency and bodily ownership: The bodyguard hypothesis. In

F. De Vignemont & A. Alsmith (eds.), The subject’s matter. Self-consciousness

and the body (pp. 217–237). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Devylder, S. (2018). Diagrammatic iconicity explains asymmetries in Paamese

possessive constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 29(2), 313-348. DOI:

10.1515/cog-2017-0058

Eggleston, A., Benedicto, E. & Balna, M. Y. (2011). Spatial frames of reference in

Sumu-Mayangna. Language Sciences 33(6),1047–1072. DOI:

10.1016/j.langsci.2011.06.007

Feist, M. I. & Gentner, D. (2003). Factors Involved in the Use of In and On. Proceedings

of the Twenty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 390–

395).

Franklin, N. & Tversky, B. (1990). Searching imagined environments. Journal of

Experimental Psychology: General 119(1), 63–76. DOI: 10.1037/0096-

3445.119.1.63

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2011.06.008

https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2017-0058

42

Gaby, A. (2012). The Thaayorre think of time like they talk of space. Frontiers in

Psychology 3, 300. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00300

Heine, B. (1997). Possession: Cognitive source, forces and grammaticalization.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hernández-Green, N., Palancar, E.L. & Hernández, S. (2011). The loanword lado in

Otomi spatial descriptions. Language Sciences 33(6), 961–980. DOI:

10.1016/j.langsci.2011.06.014

Herrmann, T. & Grabowski, J. (1994). Sprechen: Psychologie der Sprachproduktion.

Heidelberg: Spektrum.

Hund, A. M., Haney, K. H. & Seanor, B. D. (2008). The role of recipient perspective in

giving and following wayfinding directions. Applied Cognitive Psychology 22(7),

896–916. DOI:10.1002/acp.1400

Jaeger, T. F. (2011). Corpus-based research on language production: information density

and reducible subject relatives. In E.M. Bender & J.E. Arnold (eds), Language

from a cognitive perspective: grammar, usage, and processing. Studies in honor

of Thomas Wasow (pp. 161-98). Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Johnson, P. C. (2014). Extension of Nakagawa & Schielzeth's R2GLMM to random

slopes models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 5(9), 944-946.

Keysar, B., Barr, D. J. & Horton, W. S. (1998). The Egocentric Basis of Language Use:

Insights from a Processing Approach. Current Directions in Psychological

Science, 7(2), 46–50. DOI:10.1111/1467-8721.ep13175613


43

Kleiner, L. F. (2004). Review of the book Space in Language and Cognition:

Explorations in Cognitive Diversity by S. Levinson. Journal of Pragmatics 36,

2089–2099. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.007

Kliffer, M. D. (1983). Beyond syntax: Spanish inalienable possession. Linguistics, 21,

759-794. DOI: 10.1515/ling.1983.21.6.759

Lamiroy, B. (2003). Grammaticalisation and external possessor structures in Romance

and Germanic languages. In M. Coene and Y. D’Hulst (eds.), From NP to DP.

Volume II: the expression of possession in noun phrases (pp. 257–280).

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA.: MIT

Press.

Levelt, W. J. M. (1996). Perspective taking and ellipsis in spatial descriptions. In Paul

Bloom, Mary A. Peterson, Lynn Nadel and Merrill Garret (eds.), Language and

Space (pp. 77–108). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Levinson, S. C. (1996). Frames of Reference and Molyneux’s Question: Crosslinguistic

Evidence. In Paul Bloom, Mary A. Peterson, Lynn Nadel and Merrill Garret

(eds.), Language and Space (pp. 463–492). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in Language and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Lichtenberk, F., Vaid, J. & Chen, H. (2011). On the interpretation of alienable vs.

inalienable possession: A psycholinguistic investigation. Cognitive Linguistics,

22(4), 659–689. DOI: 10.1515/cogl.2011.025

López, G., A. (1998). Gramática del español. III. Las partes de la oración. Madrid:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.007

https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1983.21.6.759

44

Arco/ Libros.

Mathôt, S., Schreij, D. & Theeuwes, J. (2012). OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical

experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2),

314-324. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-011-0168-7

Meakins, F., Jones, C. & Algy, C. (2016). Bilingualism, language shift and the

corresponding expansion of spatial cognitive systems. Language Sciences 54, 1–

13. DOI: 10.1016/j.langsci.2015.06.002

Miller, G. A. & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1976). Language and perception. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Nakagawa, S. & Schielzeth, H. (2013). A general and simple method for obtaining R2

from generalized linear mixed‐effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution,

4(2), 133-142.

Nakagawa, S., Johnson, P. C. & Schielzeth, H. (2017). The coefficient of determination R

2 and intra-class correlation coefficient from generalized linear mixed-effects

models revisited and expanded. Journal of the Royal Society Interface 14,

20170213.

Nan, W., Li, Q., Sun, Y., Wang, H. & Liu, X. (2016). Conflict processing among

multiple frames of reference. PsyCh Journal 5, 256–262. DOI:10.1002/pchj.150

Nichols, J. (1992). Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Nieuwenhuijsen, D. (2008). La posesión inalienable en español y su traducción en varias

lenguas germánicas y románicas: una comparación. Hermeneus. Revista de

Traducción e Interpretación 10, 1–19.

http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0168-7


45

O’Meara, C. (2011). Spatial frames of reference in Seri. Language Sciences 33, 1025–

1046. DOI: 10.1016/j.langsci.2011.06.015

Peduzzi, P., Concato, J., Kemper, E., Holford, T. R. & Feinstein, A. R. (1996). A

simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression

analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 49(12), 1373–1378. DOI:

10.1016/S0895-4356(96)00236-3

Pérez-Báez, G. (2011). Spatial frames of reference preferences in Juchitán Zapotec.

Language Sciences 33, 943–960. DOI: 10.1016/j.langsci.2011.06.012

Polian, G. & Bohnemeyer, J., (2011). Uniformity and variation in Tseltal reference frame

use. Language Sciences 33(6), 868–891. DOI: 10.1016/j.langsci.2011.06.010

R Core Team (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R

Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-

project.org/.

Robinette, L. E., Feist, M. I. & Kalish, M. L. (2010). Framed: Factors influencing

reference frame choice in tabletop space. In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (eds.),

Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.

1064–1069). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

Romero Méndez, R., (2011). Spatial frames of reference and topological descriptions in

Ayutla Mixe. Language Sciences 33(6), 915–942. DOI: 10.1016/j.langsci.2011.06.006

Romo Simón, F. (2016). Un estudio cognitivista de las preposiciones espaciales del

español y su aplicación a la enseñanza de E/LE. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved

from https://ddd.uab.cat/pub/tesis/2016/hdl_10803_384719/frs1de1.pdf



https://www.r-project.org/

https://www.r-project.org/

46

Rosenbach, A. (2002). Genitive Variation in English. Conceptual Factors in Synchronic

and Diachronic Studies. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Rosenbach, A. (2008). Animacy and gramatical variation –Findings from English

genitive variation. Lingua 118, 151–171. DOI:10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.002

Schober, M. F. (1998). Different kinds of conversational perspective-taking. In S.R.

Fussell and R.J. Kreuz (eds.), Social and cognitive psychological approaches to

interpersonal communication (pp. 145–174). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Surtees, A. D. R., Noordzij, M. L. & Apperly, I. A. (2012). Sometimes Losing Your Self

in Space: Children’s and Adults’ Spontaneous Use of Multiple Spatial Reference

Frames. Developmental Psychology 48, 185-191. DOI:10.1037/a0025863

Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. (Vol 1, Concept structuring systems).

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Tenbrink, T. (2007). Space, time, and the use of language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Tenbrink, T. (2011). Reference frames of space and time in language. Journal of

Pragmatics 43, 704–722. DOI:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.020

Torrego Salcedo, E. (1999). El Complemento Directo Preposicional. In Ignacio Bosque

and Violeta Demonte (eds.), Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española

(Vol. 2: Las construcciones sintácticas fundamentales. Relaciones temporales,

aspectuales y modales) (pp. 1779–1806). Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.

Tosco, M. (2012). The grammar of space of Gawwada. In Matthias Brenzinger and

Anne-Maria Fehn (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th World Congress of African

Linguistics, Cologne (August 2009) (pp. 523–532). Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.002

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.020

47

Tversky, B. (1996). Spatial Perspective in Descriptions. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L.

Nadel and M. Garret (eds.), Language and Space (pp. 463–492). Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press.

Tversky, B. (2005). Form and Function. In L. Carlson and E. van der Zee (eds.),

Functional Features in Language and Space: Insights From Perception,

Categorization, and Development (pp. 331–348). Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Velázquez-Castillo, M. (1996). The Grammar of Possession: Inalienability,

incorporation and possessor ascension in Guaraní. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

von Wolff, A. (2001). Transformation und Inspektion mentaler

Umraumrepräsentationen: Modell und Empirie. Vienna: GeoInfo Series.

Vorwerg, C. (2009). Consistency in successive spatial utterances. In Kenny Coventry,

Thora Tenbrink, and John Bateman (eds.), Spatial Language and Dialogue (pp.

40-55). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Vorwerg, C. & Weiß, P. (2010). Verb semantics affects the interpretation of spatial

prepositions. Spatial Cognition and Computation 10, 247-291.

DOI:10.1080/13875861003663770

Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought, and reality. New York: Technology Press of

MIT and Wiley.

Winter, B. & Wieling, M. (2016). How to analyze linguistic change using mixed models,

Growth Curve Analysis and Generalized Additive Modeling. Journal of

Language Evolution 1(1), 7-18. DOI: 10.1093/jole/lzv003

https://doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzv003

48

Yamamoto, M. (1999). Animacy and Reference: A Cognitive Approach to Corpus

Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Zlatev, J. (2007). Spatial Semantics. In D. Geeraerts and H. Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford

Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 318–350). Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

49

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1

Figure 1: Schematic interpretation of speaker-based perspective choice (relative

reference frame; left) and relatum-based perspective choice (intrinsic reference

frame; right) for descriptions like (1) and (2). SP = speaker; LI = listener; L =

Locatum; REL = Relatum; grey arrow = relatum’s intrinsic direction (front); white arrow

= speaker’s and listener’s view direction.

50

Figure 2

Figure 2: Example of a target stimulus item presented in Experiment 1 (top: non-

possessive condition; bottom: possessive condition).

51

Figure 3

Figure 3: Experiment 1, reference frame choice in English: percentage of responses

using a relative vs. intrinsic frame of reference depending on the object type for the

non-possessive (non) and possessive (poss) conditions. The numbers below the bars

represent percentage of relative frame choices.

52

Figure 4

Figure 4: Experiment 2, reference frame choice in Spanish: percentage of responses

using a relative vs. intrinsic frame of reference depending on the object type for the

non-possessive (non) and possessive (poss) conditions. The numbers below the bars

represent percentage of relative frame choices.

53

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1

Comparison logit estimate std. error z value t value

unsided – anthropomorphic -2.94 0.77 -3.81 < 0.01

unsided – animate -3.93 1.12 -3.49 < 0.01

unsided – human -5.86 1.61 -3.63 < 0.01

sided – anthropomorphic -2.19 0.59 -3.69 < 0.01

sided – animate -3.17 0.93 -3.41 < 0.01

sided – human -5.1 1.43 -3.57 < 0.01

Table 1: Statistically significant results from post-hoc tests using the emmeans

package in R.

54

LIST OF FOOTNOTES

1 - glm(RefFrame ~ ConstructionCS+RelatumTypeCS, data = Eng, family =

binomial)

2- glmer(RefFrame ~ Construction+RelatumType +

(1+RelatumType|Participant), data = Span, family = binomial)

3 - glmer(RefFrame ~ ConstructionCS + RelatumTypeCS + LanguageCS +

ConstructionCS:LanguageCS + RelatumTypeCS:LanguageCS + (1|Participant),

data = EngSpan, family = binomial)

4 - glmer(RefFrame ~ RelatumTypeCS*LanguageCS + (1|Participant), data =

non, family = binomial)

5 - glmer(RefFrame ~ RelatumTypeCS + (1|Participant), data = poss,

family = binomial)

Date post:	29-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Language and Cognition - Bangor University · that are affected by animacy (see Section 1.3). Here...

Documents